All these bullshiat, circle jerking patent lawsuits, especially those involving technology and vague or plainly obvious descriptions in the end just cost consumers more money and give them an inferior product.

If Apple wants to license retarded patents like battery indicators and panorama gallery views and crap for $30 - $40 per device, I say let Samsung have a nickel per device for "essential" patents, which IMO actually sound like shiat that should have been patented, not the petty crap that Apple patents. Whole system is broken beyond repair.

Endive Wombat:All these bullshiat, circle jerking patent lawsuits, especially those involving technology and vague or plainly obvious descriptions in the end just cost consumers more money and give them an inferior product.

I'm just going to continue posting this, in the hopes it picks up steam.

I'll license both your patents for $1 each. Then slap a motor on it so it brushes your teeth for you. I can sell that patent pending motorized tooth brushing machine with rounded corners for $1,000 a piece!

digistil:hungryhungryhorus: I really wish this style of patent system extended to the rest of the market. I'd be a billionaire overnight.

It does. Why do you think knock-off Rolexes, Fiero Ferraris and LX bags are illegal? If your overall product too closely resembles a competitor already on the market, you're going to get sued.

And for the few sheep that still believe Samsung isn't an Apple clone, I present to you a final in-house design that was accidentally put into production.

[st.gsmarena.com image 600x437]

/Samsung is making a mockery of Android //Moto will wipe the floor w/ Samsung in a year or two, now that they have Google-league resources

That may be a very entertaining screw-up on the part of someone in Italy but it doesn't really prove anything in this case. Samsung isn't being taken to court in the US because one of their stores used iOS icons.

change1211:That may be a very entertaining screw-up on the part of someone in Italy but it doesn't really prove anything in this case. Samsung isn't being taken to court in the US because one of their stores used iOS icons.

digistil:hungryhungryhorus: I really wish this style of patent system extended to the rest of the market. I'd be a billionaire overnight.

It does. Why do you think knock-off Rolexes, Fiero Ferraris and LX bags are illegal? If your overall product too closely resembles a competitor already on the market, you're going to get sued.

And for the few sheep that still believe Samsung isn't an Apple clone, I present to you a final in-house design that was accidentally put into production.

[st.gsmarena.com image 600x437]

/Samsung is making a mockery of Android //Moto will wipe the floor w/ Samsung in a year or two, now that they have Google-league resources

Nothing you just showed means Samsung owes Apple money. I'd like to hear why you think it does.

Also, Motorola Mobility is not going to be all that integrated with Google. There's a reason why the company has retained its name. Not saying it's a good thing (it frankly kind of sucks IMO), just saying that how it is.

digistil:change1211: That may be a very entertaining screw-up on the part of someone in Italy but it doesn't really prove anything in this case. Samsung isn't being taken to court in the US because one of their stores used iOS icons.

digistil:change1211: That may be a very entertaining screw-up on the part of someone in Italy but it doesn't really prove anything in this case. Samsung isn't being taken to court in the US because one of their stores used iOS icons.

clapping.gif

It's about cloning a brand.

No, the case is about specific patent violations. Everything else is noise.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller:digistil: change1211: That may be a very entertaining screw-up on the part of someone in Italy but it doesn't really prove anything in this case. Samsung isn't being taken to court in the US because one of their stores used iOS icons.

change1211:digistil: change1211: That may be a very entertaining screw-up on the part of someone in Italy but it doesn't really prove anything in this case. Samsung isn't being taken to court in the US because one of their stores used iOS icons.

clapping.gif

It's about cloning a brand.

Or lazy-ass designers. Plenty of those around.

You don't design with your competitor's branding. Evar. Specifically for this reason.

digistil:change1211: That may be a very entertaining screw-up on the part of someone in Italy but it doesn't really prove anything in this case. Samsung isn't being taken to court in the US because one of their stores used iOS icons.

clapping.gif

It's about cloning a brand.

Except that they aren't. What you've pointed out (a store that has iStuff icons) and what's being sued over -- "your rectangle with a screen looks like our rectangle with a screen" are not the same things.

Yes, if they replicated the icon, it'd confuse consumers and would be a fair trademark violation issue -- note I said trademark, not patent.

If you're talking about the overall theme, Apple wasn't exactly the first to come up with the posh, white, simplistic theme....every Bond villain in the 70's already had that.

ericbo84:If Apple wants to license retarded patents like battery indicators and panorama gallery views and crap for $30 - $40 per device, I say let Samsung have a nickel per device for "essential" patents, which IMO actually sound like shiat that should have been patented, not the petty crap that Apple patents. Whole system is broken beyond repair.

GreenAdder:soopey: I really wish the judge had just thrown both parties out of the court room, told them to D.I.A.F., then fined the shiat out of them for wasting the court's time.

I wish the judge had done what the Euro UK judge did - make Apple publicly apologize to Samsung.

The Euro judge (specifically the German one) went the other way, found Samsung to be infringing and Apple's patents valid, and banned sales of the Tab 10.1 in Germany. And the UK judge's order is on hold pending appeal.

change1211:Theaetetus: jso2897: soopey: I really wish the judge had just thrown both parties out of the court room, told them to D.I.A.F., then fined the shiat out of them for wasting the court's time.

And also declared their entire patent libraries public domain. Just to teach them a lesson, and make an example of them.

And taken all of their property away, closed their factories, and left each company's board of directors homeless?

Well there's a pretty stupid statement.

I'm just curious. Since he's throwing out the constitution, how far is he willing to go?

GreenAdder:Theaetetus: And the UK judge's order is on hold pending appeal.

Well, of course Apple is going to appeal it. It's one thing to ask them to give up money. It's another thing to make them admit they were wrong about anything.

It's not that, it's that this is one decision out of a whole number of cases worldwide, several of which have gone the other way. Logically, Apple can't "admit they were wrong" since they were right in other jurisdictions, so the order requires them to make false statements, since it didn't limit what they were supposed to say to just the UK.

Theaetetus:change1211: Theaetetus: jso2897: soopey: I really wish the judge had just thrown both parties out of the court room, told them to D.I.A.F., then fined the shiat out of them for wasting the court's time.

And also declared their entire patent libraries public domain. Just to teach them a lesson, and make an example of them.

And taken all of their property away, closed their factories, and left each company's board of directors homeless?

Well there's a pretty stupid statement.

I'm just curious. Since he's throwing out the constitution, how far is he willing to go?

change1211:Theaetetus: change1211: Theaetetus: jso2897: soopey: I really wish the judge had just thrown both parties out of the court room, told them to D.I.A.F., then fined the shiat out of them for wasting the court's time.

And also declared their entire patent libraries public domain. Just to teach them a lesson, and make an example of them.

And taken all of their property away, closed their factories, and left each company's board of directors homeless?

Well there's a pretty stupid statement.

I'm just curious. Since he's throwing out the constitution, how far is he willing to go?

I was unaware that patent law is in the constitution.

This is going to be one of the very few places where Theaetetus and I agree....

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

tgambitg:change1211: Theaetetus: change1211: Theaetetus: jso2897: soopey: I really wish the judge had just thrown both parties out of the court room, told them to D.I.A.F., then fined the shiat out of them for wasting the court's time.

And also declared their entire patent libraries public domain. Just to teach them a lesson, and make an example of them.

And taken all of their property away, closed their factories, and left each company's board of directors homeless?

Well there's a pretty stupid statement.

I'm just curious. Since he's throwing out the constitution, how far is he willing to go?

I was unaware that patent law is in the constitution.

This is going to be one of the very few places where Theaetetus and I agree....

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Indeed, I just went and read up on that myself. I wasn't disagreeing with him, I was just unaware.

tgambitg:change1211: Theaetetus: change1211: Theaetetus: jso2897: soopey: I really wish the judge had just thrown both parties out of the court room, told them to D.I.A.F., then fined the shiat out of them for wasting the court's time.

And also declared their entire patent libraries public domain. Just to teach them a lesson, and make an example of them.

And taken all of their property away, closed their factories, and left each company's board of directors homeless?

Well there's a pretty stupid statement.

I'm just curious. Since he's throwing out the constitution, how far is he willing to go?

I was unaware that patent law is in the constitution.

This is going to be one of the very few places where Theaetetus and I agree....

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I should add, however, that he and I disagree fundamentally as to what falls under that clause.

change1211:Theaetetus: change1211: Theaetetus: jso2897: soopey: I really wish the judge had just thrown both parties out of the court room, told them to D.I.A.F., then fined the shiat out of them for wasting the court's time.

And also declared their entire patent libraries public domain. Just to teach them a lesson, and make an example of them.

And taken all of their property away, closed their factories, and left each company's board of directors homeless?

Well there's a pretty stupid statement.

I'm just curious. Since he's throwing out the constitution, how far is he willing to go?

I was unaware that patent law is in the constitution.

O.o

... but anyway, I was referring to his called-for seizure of property without due process.

Theaetetus:change1211: Theaetetus: change1211: Theaetetus: jso2897: soopey: I really wish the judge had just thrown both parties out of the court room, told them to D.I.A.F., then fined the shiat out of them for wasting the court's time.

And also declared their entire patent libraries public domain. Just to teach them a lesson, and make an example of them.

And taken all of their property away, closed their factories, and left each company's board of directors homeless?

Well there's a pretty stupid statement.

I'm just curious. Since he's throwing out the constitution, how far is he willing to go?

I was unaware that patent law is in the constitution.

O.o

... but anyway, I was referring to his called-for seizure of property without due process.

Theaetetus:Like, for example, if Apple has to say "Samsung didn't copy us," but the German judge makes Samsung say "We copied Apple," the two jurisdictions end up with competing and contradictory orders.

Why would a judge in the UK care if his ruling contradicts a German court?

HotWingConspiracy:Theaetetus: Like, for example, if Apple has to say "Samsung didn't copy us," but the German judge makes Samsung say "We copied Apple," the two jurisdictions end up with competing and contradictory orders.

Why would a judge in the UK care if his ruling contradicts a German court?

He doesn't, but Apple does, hence the appeal. And the German court might be a bit peeved, too. My point is that it's not just that Apple "doesn't want to admit they're wrong", but that they're in the position where they're being ordered to say something that is false, because what they've been ordered to say isn't limited to the facts at issue.

Theaetetus:HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: Like, for example, if Apple has to say "Samsung didn't copy us," but the German judge makes Samsung say "We copied Apple," the two jurisdictions end up with competing and contradictory orders.

Why would a judge in the UK care if his ruling contradicts a German court?

He doesn't, but Apple does, hence the appeal. And the German court might be a bit peeved, too. My point is that it's not just that Apple "doesn't want to admit they're wrong", but that they're in the position where they're being ordered to say something that is false, because what they've been ordered to say isn't limited to the facts at issue.

How many of these cases have not been appealed anyways, I don't think anyone was all that shocked when Apple appealed.